Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of plant genera named for people (K–P)/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC).

List of plant genera named for people (K–P)

 * Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

This is the next-to-last list in this series, and it got one support and no opposes the last time around. Chris, here is the diff (per reviewer requests) since May 1 when you supported, and here is a list of changes specific to this list, the ones you haven't already seen (probably) in the other list. Enjoy. Sturmvogel, per our earlier conversation, you're welcome to review this one if you want to ... or not, I can probably get 3 reviews ... eventually. - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - I supported before and nothing seems to have changed significantly -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Chris. - Dank (push to talk) 12:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Sturmvogel_66
 * I'm a little concerned with the disparity in entries between those people with blue links and those with red ones. I fully sympathize with your desire not to duplicate the info at the blue link, but it does look odd. Especially since I'm not at all sure that everyone that you've redlinked is actually notable.
 * On the question of who to red-link, I'll stand by the answer I gave in the review for the previous list (search for "redlinking"). On the disparity in information ... this is a tough one. I had a canned answer ready ... that this information would be better suited for sublists ... but at this point I don't intend to write the sublists. The main point is: whether the reader will be happy depends on what the reader is looking for. There's a need, not just on Wikipedia but in the world, for high-quality reference material on plant genus names. If the reader wants to use this list to find out who a genus was named for, I think they'll be happy, but if they're coming here for a fact-filled history-of-science tale, maybe not so much. The trouble is: no one is interested in looking up information like this across 20 different pages, just like no one is interested in 20-volume dictionaries (online or off). So, I've been weighing considerations of depth vs. length across 10 lists for about 18 months now, and this is what we've come up with after many discussions with reviewers and others. As I mentioned in the previous review, I can't just add text to 70% of the entries ... I added about as much as could be added in response to requests last time, and if the list gets any bigger, some images will stop loading for some readers ... that already happened for one of the reviewers, early on, and I learned then how many rows and how much text I could squeeze into these lists. So ... lots of questions here, and I'm still open to changes, but after 18 months and roughly 31 supports so far (including source reviews) for this shape and size for the lists, I'm not sure how much wiggle room I have at this point. (And the question of what source we would pull the info from if we did want more info is so hard that that's almost a stopper all by itself.) - Dank (push to talk)
 * There's a shortage of links to countries, IMO (I think that Wikipedians generally grossly overestimate the level of geographical knowledge of the average reader), and to some of the botanical gardens mentioned (which may very well not have enough coverage to justify an article)
 * I completely agree that many readers won't know where these countries are. I think (not sure) I'm following the Main Page and FLC standard in not linking any countries, and conversely linking anything geographical that isn't a country. I don't personally care what rule we follow on this ... I guess I'll just ask for now if any other reviewers have thoughts on this. If not, I'll start asking around. - Dank (push to talk)
 * On the botanical gardens, in order: 1. the former university in Harderwijk: the university closed more than 200 years ago. I don't know what conclusion to draw about the gardens. 2. Bogor Botanical Gardens: hitting a dead-end here too. The gardens by this name were founded in 1817; the guy supposedly at some gardens in this city died in 1827, and he's not mentioned in the list I'm seeing of head gardeners there, so I don't know if he was actually there or at some previous or different gardens in the same city. And so forth. I'm not saying it can't be done, more like: I've got a bad feeling about adding a lot of links that I can't defend. - Dank (push to talk) 00:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Many, if not most, redlinks use full names when we now use disambiguators to differentiate articles between people with the same names
 * All I'm doing here is, in almost all cases, following the version of the name given by Burkhardt. I've come to trust her judgment in general, but if there's some different source for the names that you prefer, I'll probably have no objection at all. - Dank (push to talk)
 * I'd suggest linking the specialized terminology here (botanist, mycologist, herbalist, etc.)
 * I have no objection, but this also was a real struggle and there's no easy answer. Since I have to link things everywhere in the table if I link things anywhere (unlike in unsorted tables and at FAC and GAN), and since reviewers will insist on consistency (including maybe: if I link one specialty or profession, then I have to link all of them), then there will be potential SEAOFBLUE issues in addition to maybe going over the size limits I talked about above. Still: if there's consensus and we don't go over the limits, I have no objection at all to linking all the professions and occupations. I'll leave the question up here for now to see if anyone else has input. How would you feel about a short glossary in the notes covering the professions instead of links throughout the table? - Dank (push to talk)
 * Watch your capitalizations for organizational proper names. I saw at least one Indian army
 * Changed to "army in India". I've searched for navy, coast guard and marines and don't see anything else similar. - Dank (push to talk)
 * I see no need to list page ranges in your references unless you're referencing a specific chapter or article in that book.
 * My source reviewer asked for that ... OTOH, he did say that maybe he changed his mind later, so I'll go ask him. - Dank (push to talk)
 * I'll hold off on the line-by-line review until you've had a chance to respond to these comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * First ... even before I read your comments (and I see that the first one might or might not be problematic!), I'm happy to see you here ... I feel like I'm in good hands. - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you prefer my replies interleaved line-by-line or all together? - Dank (push to talk) 17:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also ... I think that one thing that a lot of people don't appreciate about FLC culture is ... there are a lot of smart reviewers here, and a lot who care about various points ... even if, on average, they are more likely to give the appearance of not caring as much about the details than reviewers may give at GAN or FAC. This is my 9th plant list at FLC, and it's entirely possible that I can change a whole lot of things around in this list and the previous lists without much pushback ... but I'm not comfortable with simply making that assumption, I feel like that would be disrespectful. So, fair warning, for any major changes that would affect prior lists, I'm going to be running anything you and I decide on past the previous reviewers to see if they buy the arguments and have any preferences of their own. - Dank (push to talk) 17:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Either way is fine. I looked at the reviews of one of your previous noms and didn't see anything relating to the points I raised above, but I gotta be me. It's been a while since I've done anything at FLC, but feel free to invite previous reviewers to comment on my points. I wanted a discussion about the disparities in the entries as I'm not certain that it is something that truly matters as opposed to what is essentially a consistency issue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Replied above, let me know what you think. - Dank (push to talk) 21:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

PresN, could you pull this nomination? Please and thanks. I'm not putting this on Sturmvogel, I respect his work. As I've mentioned, these plants lists are one small part of a bigger project, and I need to spend more time on the other parts and less time on these lists. - Dank (push to talk) 13:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.